Wednesday, June 13, 2012

I was going to write a full-blown review of Prometheus, which I saw last weekend, but I don't really have the wherewithal to do so. The movie's been hashed and rehashed so many times since its release in Europe two weeks ago that I'm not sure I have anything insightful to add. So, in lieu of my own review, I offer instead the following quote which comes close to summing up my feelings:

Ridley Scott may have the technical craft polished to an almost absurdly
accomplished level, but the script itself feels like the stoned-at-3:00
AM musings of a first-year philosophy student. It is deep in the most
shallow of ways, asking some of the biggest questions of our existence
with a puppyish enthusiasm and without even the vaguest hint of an
answer.

It's easy to draw comparisons between this film and "2001: A Space
Odyssey," and Scott seems to be inviting those comparisons with his
first image here, an almost-direct quotation of Kubrick's movie. The
difference is that Kubrick didn't graft the Hollywood structure onto his
examination of the moments where life has taken a quantum jump forward
in complexity and sophistication. He had enough faith in the strength
of what he was doing that he told a very unconventional version of a
narrative. But anything he raised as a question in that movie, he
answered. If you think "2001" is in any way "vague," you need to see it
again. That is a movie where every piece of information you need from
it is contained within. Although I enjoy "2010" as a piece of
mainstream science-fiction, it is very much the dumb cousin of the first
film. It spells things out, or tries to, in a way that is almost
insulting after how carefully constructed "2001" is to reveal it secrets
to a patient and inquisitive audience. Unfortunately, "Prometheus" is
far more "2010" than "2001."

I can sum the plot of Prometheus for you: Its like someone was flicking through a copy of Dragon Magazine and read the editorial describing the Editor's experiences in D&D - where Editor so and so having ventured into the Dungeons 'neath Castle Greyhawk the night before the party was set to explore it - encountered a giant stone head and cast a magic mouth spell on it so it Declares that 'He who gives away his most valuable magic of his own free will looking for nothing in return shall be rewarded tenfold!' and then ventures in with the Party the next morning and with the Giant stone head repeating its message - the more magic toting PC gives away his most powerful magic item to the sneaky PC spell-caster - and said: Hey Lets have a Giant Stone head with a Message.

Such as yourself, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when likes of Steven Spielberg, David Fincher, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, Akira Kurosawa , Ingrid Bergman, Orson Wells, Sidney Polak, David Lynch, Mark Romanek, George Lucas, Sidney Lumet, all acknowledge Kubrick as one of the greatest directors of all time...Well, you look like a complete idiot when you say Kubrick was a terrible director.

Oh come on, Woody Allen is terrible as well. Kurosawa's most famous work is over-long, repetitive, tedious and poorly acted - wouldn't surprise me at all that he likes Kubrick, who never saw an actor he couldn't turn into a wooden shell of a man. And David Lynch? If some idiot standing on a stage while cauliflower-shaped sperm dolls fall on his head is meant to be cinema, well ...

This quote James links to is poorly written and largely a defense of 2001. What random tosh it is. And to complain that Prometheus is the ramblings of a first year philosophy student by comparing it unfavourably to something as pretentious and pointless as 2001? I don't get to see this movie until August, unfortunately, but there's no information content in this review.

Hmmm...2001 pointless.... it was about humanity being shaped by technology, being challenged by that technology, and reaching enlightenment through the use of technology. Its not very subtle. Comparing other sci-fi films to 2001 is sometimes an exercise in pretension in any case. Alien was a great horror film made in an era where horror was mumbojumbo, slasher flicks, and black cats. The director communicated the environment amazingly well inthe film and it was as much a character in the film as Ripley and the Alien. A film set in the same universe as alien should be judged against that.

I gave up on going to the movies. Hollywood has homogenized it's product down to such a mediocre medium. The only movie(s) I look forward to is The Hobbit. Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer have influenced too much of the mainstream into thinking explosions and non-stop action is the ONLY way to make a sci-fi or fantasy movie. Peter Jackson is the exception (although King Kong was SOOOOOOO boring and way too long). Hollywood thinks we all think "Armageddon" had a deep message.

Well if it helps any, if you're looking for entertainment, enjoy sci fi scenery and space ship porn, and happen to have enjoyed Alien without worrying too much about the Deep Inner Meaning of it all, Prometheus is an enjoyable movie. I think we're asking a bit too much of our light popcorn entertainment these days....or maybe I'm just happy to see a film in the franchise that was better than the last four films combined, albeit not quite as good as Alien and Aliens--but a fair sight better than Alien Resurrection, the abominable AvP series and A3.

This movie suffers only because its own hype and our inflated expectations. I'm not trying to be forgiving of the film....I'm saying it was a horror movie that is part of a franchise about people-eating/impregnating aliens, and this is not a franchise that has ever asked the deep questions, despite our fondest desire to think it did.

I have to agree with you. Just because some critic highly rates something doesn't mean it's any good. Nine times out of ten the critic has an agenda and is supporting a film with the some values that align with it. I think we've all seen 'critically acclaimed' films that were absolutely awful.

Ugh, and that's another waste of everyone's time (Donnie Darko). A film with no heart and soul just a man going mad and everybody is supposed to think it is clever and amazing. It's not, it's shallow and pointless.

But anything he raised as a question in that movie, he answered. If you think "2001" is in any way "vague," you need to see it again.

...I have to call BS. Especially since Kubrick specifically said otherwise. This reviewer is attempting to prove his chops by saying "Oh yeah, I totally understood 2001!" and not realizing what a complete fool he's making of himself by claiming his personal interpretation is the only correct one.

We were angry after seeing Prometheus. All this time for Scott to do something great - and perhaps my inflated expectations, just resulted in a predictable flop of a movie. I'll give him another chance though. Tarentino does NOT though - what he did with Death Proof Is unforgivable.

I have seen Prometheus, and 2001 many times, and I call BS as well. 2001 is a good movie but basically incoherent. Prometheus is also a fairly good movie but also incoherent in places. If anything, Prometheus did a better job of explaining itself (albeit poorly at times) whereas 2001 is essentially nonsensical unless you draw your own conclusions - which didn't used to be considered a bad thing.

Please considering your fascinating (and I'm sure very well-informed) discussion of how Hollywood's most respected directors have feet of clay. Surely Welles and Bergman must also have fallen short of your exacting standards? I mean, there's not one gunfight or helicopter chase in Citizen Kane. And The Seventh Seal isn't even in English!

The main complaint I hear about the movie is that it fails to deliver on the ideas it brings up.

However, I don't like the movie because it doesn't tell a good story - it is riddled with logical and structural problems (some forgivable some not).

What is the conflict of the story, and more importantly, is the conflict entertaining? That is what people should be asking themselves.

That might sound like a conventional complaint from a narrow mind but I think people are actually feeling more confused and dissatisfied by the lack of sensible plot conventions in Prometheus rather than the lack of conclusive exposition on the sci-fi elements.

The_Shadow_Knows faustusnotes Would either of you care to clarify and support your assertions that Kubrick is "terrible" or that 2001 is "basically incoherent", or are you just typical time-wasting internet blowhards? (I realize these alternatives are not exclusive.)

to the quotation: philosophy isn't necessarily suppose to "have answers". philosophy is a "love of wisdom rather than wisdom itself." huge difference. maybe he should take that first year of philosophy.

as for the movie: terribly written for the aesthetic execution. its like looking at the most gorgeous pile of feces you've ever seen.

Follow Grognardia

Grognardia Games, Dwimmermount, the Grognardia logo, and the Dwimmermount logo are trademarks of James Maliszewski. Tékumel is a trademark of M.A.R. Barker and is used with permission of the Tékumel Foundation. For additional information, please visit www.tekumelfoundation.org